(Vol. viii., p. 182.)
A correspondent who seems to delight in sibilants, signing, himself
S. Z. Z. S., invites me to "_preserve_, in your columns, the letter of
Calvin to Cranmer, of which Dean Jenkyns has only given extracts," as
noticed by me in your Vol. vii., p. 621.
I would not shrink from the trouble of transcribing the whole letter, if a
complete copy were only to be found in the short-lived columns of a
newspaper, as inserted in the _Record_ of May 15, 1843, by Merle d'Aubigné;
but the Dean has given a reference to the volume in which both the letters
he cites are preserved and accessible, viz. _Calvin Epistles_, pp. 134,
135., Genev. 1616. {223}
S. Z. Z. S. justly observes that there are two points to be distinguished:
first, Cranmer's wish that Calvin should assist in a general union of the
churches protesting against Romish errors; second, Calvin's offer to assist
in settling the Church of England. He adds, "The latter was declined; and
the reason is demonstrated in Archbishop Laurence's _Bampton Lectures_." I
neither possess those lectures, nor the volume of Calvin's epistles; but
all I have seen of the correspondence between him and Cranmer, in the
Parker Society's editions of Cranmer, and of original letters between
1537-58, and in Jenkyns' _Remains of Cranmer_, indisposes me to believe
that Calvin made any "offer to assist in settling the Church of England."
It appears from Dean Jenkyns' note, vol. i. p. 346., that Archbishop
Laurence made a mistake in the order of the correspondence, calculated to
mislead himself; and as to Heylyn's assertion, _Eccles. Restaur._, p. 65.,
that Calvin made such an offer and "that the Archbishop (Cranmer) _knew_
the man and refused his offer," the Dean says:
"He gives no authority for the later part of his statement, and it can
hardly be reconciled with Cranmer's letter to Calvin of March 20,
1552."
The contemptuous expression, he "knew the man and refused his offer," is,
in fact, utterly irreconcilable with Cranmer's language in all his three
letters to Melancthon, to Bullinger, and to Calvin (Nos. 296, 297, 298. of
Parker Society's edition of _Cranmer's Remains_, and Nos. 283, 284, 285. of
Jenkyns' edition), where he tells each of the other two that he had written
to Calvin from his desire--
"Ut in Anglia, aut alibi, doctissimorum et _optimorum_ virorum synodus
convocaretur, in qua de puritate ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ, et præcipue de
consensu controversiæ sacramentariæ tractaretur."
Or, as he said to Calvin himself:
"Ut docti et pii viri, qui alios antecellunt eruditione et judicio,
convenirent."
Your correspondent seems to have used the word "demonstrated" rather in a
surgical than in its mathematical sense.
Having taken up my pen to supply you with an answer to this historical
inquiry, I may as well notice some other articles in your No. 199. For
example, in p. 167., L. need not have referred your readers to Halliwell's
_Researches in Archaic Language_ for an explanation of Bacon's word
"bullaces." The word may be seen in Johnson's _Dictionary_, with the
citation from Bacon, and instead of vaguely calling it "a small black and
tartish plum," your botanical readers know it as the _Prunus insititia_.
Again, p. 173., J. M. may like to know farther, that the Duke of
Wellington's clerical brother was entered on the boards of St. John's
College, Cambridge, as Wesley, where the spelling must have been dictated
either by himself, or by the person authorised to desire his admission. It
continued to be spelt Wesley in the Cambridge annual calendars as late as
1808, but was altered in that of 1809 to Wellesley. The alteration was
probably made by the desire of the family, and without communicating such
desire to the registrary of the university. For it appears in the edition
of _Graduati Cantabrigienses_, printed in 1823, as follows:
"Wesley, Gerard Valerian, Coll. Joh. A. M. 1792. Comitis de Mornington,
Fil. nat. 4^{tus}."
In p. 173., C. M. INGLEBY may like to know, as a clue to the origin of his
_apussee and_, that I was taught at school, sixty years ago, to call & _And
per se_, whilst some would call it _And-per-se-and_.
In the same page, the inquirer B. H. C. respecting the word _mammon_, may
like to know that the history of that word has been given at some length in
p. 1. to p. 68. of the Parker Society's edition of Tyndale's _Parable of
the wicked Mammon_, where I have stated that it occurs in a form identical
with the English in the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos on Exod. viii. 21., and
in that of Jonathan on Judges, v. 9., as equivalent to riches; and that in
the Syriac translation it occurs in a form identical with [Greek: Mamôna],
in Exod. xxi. 30., as a rendering for [Hebrew: K\holam\P\segol\R], the
price of satisfaction. In B. H. C.'s citation from Barnes, _even_ seems a
misprint for _ever_. The Jews did not again fall into actual idolatry after
the Babylonish captivity; but we are told that in the sight of God
covetousness is idolatry.